AndrevanTonder <andre_at_het.brown.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, Michael Sperber wrote:
>>
>> I would say that it does---that was certainly the intention. The
>> environment that the `define-record-type' form is exactly the
>> environment containing the bindings for the predicates, accessors etc.
>> (Didn't exactly this discussion come up during the SRFI discussion?)
>> I'll be happy to improve the wording, but, as the wording in place is
>> my best shot, I'll need a concrete suggestion.
>
> I think the part "same environment" is perhaps the issue here. Maybe
> "same lexical scope" would be a better choice.
That would be a misuse of the word "scope". Generally, the scope of a
definition of a name x is the region of the program in which a
reference to x would refer to that definition of x. (I'm liberally
quoting Jonathan Rees here.) The notion makes no sense without
referring to a specific identifier. The use of the word "environment"
is exactly right here, and to my knowledge it is used consistently in
the report draft. (Any occurrences that are not are bugs by me.)
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
Received on Wed Nov 22 2006 - 10:38:47 UTC